Talk:United States Presidential Election, 1916 (Southern Victory)
We'd better throw TL-191 somewhere into the titles or at least first lines of these articles, or we're getting down on our knees and crying out for anyone who can hear us to come offer spammy "corrections." Turtle Fan 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :I agree. :I should point out that if we really wanted to grow this category, I could cannabalize some of the information available from "Joe Steele" and create articles covering 1932-1940 as well. Plus there's 1964 from Colonization. TR 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ::Yes, that works. And of course there's plenty of information available on the GotS elections. Turtle Fan 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) OTL Section Ok, proposed edits: The 1916 campaign was a year of fence-mending in the Republican Party. the divisive election of In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to wrest the party's nomination from its incumbent President, William Howard Taft. At this he failed, but the Republican Party's center-left base deserted the party, defecting to the Progressive Party and nominating Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson to run against conservative Republicans' choice of Taft and James Sherman as well as Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall. Wilson and Marshall won easily in the face of a divided Republican vote. In 1916, though, and divisions remained within the Republican Party years later., Charles Evans Hughes, a Supreme Court] justice, resigned from the court to seek the Presidential nomination. (He would later be returned to the court Chief Justice.) Hughes enjoyed the support of the entire Republican party, progressives as well as the now-dominant conservatives. While The Progressive Party renominated Roosevelt and nominated John Parker of Louisiana as his running-mate. However, Roosevelt refused to accept their nomination and threw his support behind Hughes. This led to the Progressives' dissolution and the reassertion of the two-party system after the anomalous 1912 election, in which a "third" party finished second in the voting for the first and only time since the modern two-party system emerged. Hughes ran an uninspired, lackluster campaign that earned him the uncomplimentary nickname "The Bearded Iceberg," but he and his running mate, former Roosevelt Vice President Charles Fairbanks, came surprisingly close to winning. President Woodrow Wilson and President Thomas Marshall defeated the Republican ticket in the electoral college by an uncomfortably narrow margin of 23 votes. Wilson-Marshall won three states they had lost in 1912 but lost thirteen states they had won, including Wilson's home state of New Jersey. Wilson became the only two-term president in American history to win reelection with fewer electoral votes than he'd won in his first election. He also won the popular vote by a razor-thin margin of 3.1%., which at the time was a record for narrowest popular margin by an incumbent president who won reelection. (In 2004, George W. Bush broke this record by winning reelection with a popular margin of only 2.4%.)" Thoughts? TR (talk) 20:44, October 10, 2016 (UTC) :Even then it seems like it has more than it needs, since none of the OTL candidates figure into the 191 election at all. By the way, I don't know how old this article is but I don't believe he's the only incumbent reelected with fewer electors anymore. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:01, October 10, 2016 (UTC) ::It certainly pre-dates 2012. TR (talk) 23:06, October 10, 2016 (UTC) :::I just readded the OTL Election section. However, it's trimmed down alot from what it was back in 2016. It just basically says that Wilson and Marshall narrowly defeated Hughes and Fairbanks in the general election. The Progressives renominated Roosevelt to run, but he refused to run and supported Hughes, resulting in the death of the first Progressive Party. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 13:25, May 8, 2018 (UTC) States in the Election Should we add the known states that both Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene V. Debs carried in the election? Of coarse, we don't know all the states they carried but here are some that were mentioned in Walk in Hell. Some info is also found out on this alternatehistory.com thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-191-map-thread.251639/page-13 *Utah doesn't vote due to the Utah Troubles. * Roosevelt likely wins all six New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. He also had the lead in Dakota (It's mentioned that Roosevelt was ahead by ten thousand in Dakota.) and likely wins both Illinois and Michigan. * Debs wins his home state of Indiana. He likely wins Wyoming (He's mentioned of leading by seven thousand in Wyoming.), too. A surprise is that Roosevelt's home state of New York goes to Debs and is the only known "big state" to go to him and probably to Roosevelt's dismay. (Three people congruently mention that the Empire State was won by Debs and said it as if that were a consolation prize. A person named Bruck also says that the Socialists aren't carrying any of the other big states as he was looking at a map of the USA.) Some of the quotes are apparently on page 466 of Walk in Hell according to the thread. If I'm wrong about some of this information, I apologize. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:50, November 20, 2019 (UTC) :I just don't like to do partial lists. It's interesting trivia for a reader of the book, but I feel like a reader of this page would prefer all-or-nothing. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:44, November 21, 2019 (UTC) ::I'm inclined towards TF's position. The key plot element here is that Roosevelt won, period, and the article address this fact. The states he carried are incidental at best. While we usually include whatever information we have gleaned from the texts, we've still emphasized relevance of that info to the plot of the given work. TR (talk) 17:26, November 21, 2019 (UTC) :::So, I take that as a no then. Can we ayt least add the info to the respective state articles, though? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:05, November 21, 2019 (UTC) ::::I don't know. It's so inconsequential, and I don't like articles turning into lists of random facts. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:29, November 21, 2019 (UTC)